In early January, Latvian capital Riga joined the organization of local governments of Pieriga and it was renamed to the union of Riga and Pieriga local governments Riga Metropolis. In order to find out how work in the organization will be organized and what the benefits to local residents from this cooperation will be, LETA agency interviewed Riga Vice Mayor, Riga Metropolis co-chairman Edvards Smiltens (Latvian Alliance of Regions, LRA).

Why did Riga participate in foundation of this organization?

Internationally recognized North European metropolis sounds excellent, but so far these words had no coverage. We have an action plan for development of the Riga Metropolis area, we have many different planning documents, underscoring the necessity to work not only in Riga, and for Pieriga municipalities - not only in their territories, but the synergy should cover the whole Riga Metropolis area. It means that there should be a cooperation model. Starting this job as the Riga vice mayor, I have taken up the main duties related with local governments and foreign countries. I have cooperation with local governments, talks and meetings with foreign embassies.

Speaking about the Riga Metropolis area, we selected three main directions. The first is to develop institutional framework or cooperation platform - how Riga will communicate with Pieriga municipalities, how we will discuss problems, how we will decide on the agenda and solve the issues. This was the first task included in the Riga City Council coalition’s action plan. It was the fourth point in our action plan, which means that it has a high priority - to develop and introduce a cooperation model with local governments of the Riga Metropolis area in transport planning, mobility, education system, environment protection and other sectors. In fact, as of January 11, we have completed this point. The cooperation model has been formed, and we have established a union of the Riga and Pieriga municipalities, named Riga Metropolis.

Why is it necessary? We have a number of problems, solutions to which cannot be found in the territory of Riga. I underscored this in my first speech, taking up the position at the Riga City Council. For example, we want to be a climate neutral city, we want to ensure greener environment for the residents of Riga, more greenery, less CO2 emissions in the city centre. It is one of the tasks.

Second - we are inspired by Danish architect Jan Gehl. We are speaking about the city of people, about cycling infrastructure, micromobility infrastructure, greenery.

For example, Caka Street is the first attempt to reduce the number of transport lanes and give this space to micromobility and pedestrians. However, there is a huge problem that keeps us from making it happen. About 300,000 people are commuting to Riga every day. Therefore, if we want to solve this problem, Rigas Satiksme as a public transport company should be turned from a company serving Riga territory into a Riga Metropolis company. I would even say that not only Riga, but also Pieriga municipalities should become shareholders in the company to make this a large capital company that serves Riga and Pieriga municipalities.

We have to change habits at least for half of these 300,000 people who are arriving to Riga every day, otherwise we will not reduce the number of transport units in the city. We can reduce the number of transport lanes on Caka Street, but, in this way, we just make people angry, both those who do not live in Riga, and those who sit in public transport and go home to Purvciems, Plavnieki or other directions because no they can walk faster along Caka Street than go by trolleybus We will make all drivers to Purvciems, Plavnieki and Mezciems angry. However, drivers may find other streets.

We have to achieve that we build these mobility points in Pieriga, beyond Riga borders. The locations have already been selected. And it is not so that there is a car park for a couple of hundreds of cars. Thousands of cars should be able to arrive, park where there is a railway station, where you can easily board and go to the city centre. It could also be a different public transport. For example, there were talks about Bergi where the tram line could be extended from Jugla. Thus, we will be able to ease the load from the city centre, make it people-friendly, greener, improving the urban environment in Riga.

There are also issues of preschools, public utilities, recreation territories around Riga. There are very many issues on the agenda right now.

Why could this not be solved in the existing formats, for example, the Latvian Association of Large Cities or the Latvian Association of Local and Regional Governments?

Those are different interests. The Latvian Association of Large Cities (LLPA) unites such cities as Liepaja, Jelgava and others who are solving regional issues. I have seen how influential this organization is because my previous job was related with active work at the parliament and ministries, it is a strong municipal lobby organization. But its interests are not based on development of the Riga Metropolis area and solving its problems. LLPA might be jealous of such a metropolis with almost one million residents and the biggest share of the economy. Riga Metropolis currently represents 15 local governments, but the organization also wants to address Jurmala, Sigulda, it has a growth potential. It is not though an aggressive competition. LLPA is solving problems of a different scale and form. We want to grow as the Riga Metropolis area and use the potential that has not been used so far.

Tell us what the cooperation will be like on the platform and how decision making will be held in this organization!

We have developed a union of Riga and Pieriga municipalities Riga Metropolis, and it is working based on the parity principle between Pieriga municipalities together and the Riga municipality. This is reflected in financing. We have agreed that the aggregate budget could be around EUR 80,000 - half of it funded by Riga, and the other half by Pieriga municipalities together. The board will have four members - two from Riga and two from Pieriga municipalities. The leaders are co-chairmen, symbolizing this parity. The board decisions should be supported by three of the four board members.

You have visited a number of Pieriga municipalities - what did their representatives wish most?

We have managed to meet with almost half of the municipalities from the work plan. Some of the meetings were held remotely because, unfortunately, Covid-19 makes communication more complicated. I want to visit these municipalities, see the problems, walk around there in person. For example, in Garkalne we solved the problem because initially the mobility point had been planned in Garkalne village, but on the spot, seeing the place and explaining how I see this matter, what the local situation is, we came to a conclusion that this is not the right idea. During the discussion we found a free land spot of 16 hectares, belonging to Rigas Mezi forest manager, directly connected to A1 and A2 motorways, next to the railway in an excellent place which might serve as an excellent mobility point, achieving its goals. During this meeting we achieved a progress on separate issues.

There are also issues discussed that refer only to some of the municipalities. For example, cooperation in transportation of Rigas Udens sewage to Daugavgriva wastewater treatment facility. Also, we have a common issue related with preschools. It is a huge problem in Riga, but the situation differs across municipalities. We understand that there are cases when children are coming to Riga preschools from Pieriga, and the vice versa. The fight for registered addresses of residence or attempts to register the address only because of preschools is not rational and right. People should declare the place of residence in the place where they actually live. This is another issue that should be solved jointly.

Next are transport and traffic issues. And infrastructure projects. I already mentioned Rigas Satiksme. We have agreed with Rigas Satiksme that this summer there will be three pilot routes launched in Pieriga municipalities. We will see how it works.

In the transport sector, we have a number of absurdities in the infrastructure department. For example, the crossing of Upesgrivas and Kantora Streets in Marupe. The project and construction were implemented in Marupe, after which a section of 40 meters remained untouched, and the streets do no connect because there is a border between Riga and Marupe. Even though local governments may not make investments in territories of another municipality, we have to develop a mechanism how to treat this problem. Such projects should be implemented in cooperation with the other municipality or Marupe implements the project and sends the bill to Riga for these 40 meters. Now we have to spend EUR 100,000 for the design project, send out equipment there to complete the street - it is a waste of resources and impractical management that also makes local residents angry. There are also other similar projects, that we have included in out 2021 budget.

Finally, it is planning a joint transport system so that all works from development planning would be coordinated between Riga and Pieriga municipalities, to prevent such illogical cases.

Another matter is environment and recreation territories. Forest territories managed by Rigas Mezi are not located only in Riga, it is the so-called Riga green circle around the borders of Riga, some even in Limbazi and Ogre. I will focus on Rigas Mezi infrastructure - benches, waste bins, paths and other recreational infrastructure. Especially during Covid-19, people use every opportunity to walks in fresh air with children, pets. These are very important things. We have initiated cooperation projects with Pieriga municipalities in relation to these territories.

And finally, social issues. There is a long line in Riga for a place in social care homes. I see a huge potential, and many Pieriga municipalities have said that we have to cooperate in developing social care homes outside the Riga centre. People would have more fresh air, they would be in nature. There is a huge potential, and we would manage to reduce lines in this way.

In total we have discussed very many issues and opened several possible cooperation lines.

You mentioned transport and traffic. Can you explain which extended routes do you have in mind? And how may the ownership structure at Rigas Satiksme change in the future?

Those are three routes - Abrenes Street-Ulbroka-Sauriesi, Riga-Balozi, and Riga-Marupe-Jaunmarupe.

In relation to Riga Metropolis companies, there is one good example how local governments established a joint company that is functioning successfully. It is waste management company ZAAO developed by Saulkrasti, Valmiera, Rujiena and other municipalities in northern Vidzeme. They are shareholders in the company and decide the company’s future. They are interested in efficient work of the company, ensuring the best tariffs for local residents. I think that Rigas Satiksme might be developed in a similar way, that would make the company more transparent and better managed. It would also ease mutual payments and planning. I see a number of benefits in this direction. Besides, Rigas Satiksme needs to look for new directions and new clients to develop and strengthen the company because the number of residents in Riga is declining, the urban environment for years has not been made friendly for residents and public transport development had not been the first priority. Pieriga municipalities and their residents are interested in public transport routes that get to them and people do not have to use three kinds of public transport to get to the centre of Riga.

I see here the principle that engulfs the main idea of the Riga Metropolis - everybody wins. There are no losers. The winners are the residents of Riga, Pieriga and the state.

One of the Riga City Council committees decided on rent of land plots for Park&Ride in Riga. You are mentioning mobility points in Pieriga. Is it not contradictory?

Mobility points located in the perimeter would be strategical. It means that people who are coming to Riga via A1, A2 motorways, from Jelgava and Liepaja, from Ventspils, park by the Riga border, take a bike, a train or metrobus to go to the city centre. Thus, the Riga centre is not full of cars. Internal mobility points are not for the Park&Ride system. In my opinion, it would be wrong if we built Park&Ride in the Riga centre or around the centre’s railway circle. Our main task is to create a convenient and cheap system for people. They need to come, park a car, so that it is convenient, understandable and they can get fast where they need to get. If it is not so, we can build car parks, name them in whatever names we want, but they will simply remain empty. If a person has already come to the city centre by car, he does not need Park& Ride, he is looking for the closest parking place on the street.

The transport minister earlier called to change public transport principles, naming railway as the backbone of the public transport. How does it go together with your plans?

Returning to Garkalne example. We marked 16 hectares that belong to Rigas Mezi, located next to A2 motorway, and A1 overpass. Railway is on the other side of this land plot. It would be necessary to move Baltezers railway station by about kilometre. Park&Ride infrastructure should be developed there with a service centre. In this case, the Transport Ministry should adapt railway infrastructure and move railway stations to locations where we need them. Mobility point means that different ways of mobility meet in one point.

Such projects need financing. It is clear that if we put this issue on Garkalne county that will be Ropazi county after the reform, then such a mobility point would cost the whole county’s budget. We cannot compare the government budget, the Riga budget and Garkalne county budget. Besides, they are not the only ones who want to use such a service. In fact, they will be the minority to use this service. There should be clarity about the source of funding. Local governments are ready to participate with co-funding, but only if it does not eat up their future growth potential. They do not want to put all development money in one project.

Speaking about Rail Baltica, could this route also be included in solving mobility issues?

Possibly - yes, possibly - no. Rail Baltica gives us railway track infrastructure which we can use also for other trains. In this respect - yes. Rail Baltic speed trains most probably will not be of help as their efficiency is if there are not many stops. They are crossing this distance in the shortest time possible, and they will not be the trains to collect passengers from Pieriga, bringing them to the Riga centre. Those should be regular trains doing it, possibly using the infrastructure. There are some intermediary solutions in France, for example, regional transport. It is a matter for Latvijas Dzelzcels railway company to solve - how they see the overall strategy, considering that the number of people who would have to change their habits is big.

Project funding could be very complicated. May Riga finance construction of a preschool in another Pieriga municipality?

One municipality may not invest money in infrastructure of another municipality because this money belongs to residents of the said municipality.

How can this be solved?

This is a topical issue. We have to find a solution. What is clear about preschools is that one of the directions is building new preschools and increasing their capacity on the borders of Riga - they could be located by the main roads, where flows of people enter Riga., Those could be joint preschools developed by two municipalities.

It is one of the directions to reduce lines for places in preschools and ensure available, good quality and efficient services for residents of Riga and Pieriga.

Reporting on the first 100 days in the office, you mentioned that there is an agreement on a joint project for the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility. Can you tell about this project?

Speaking about the Recovery and Resilience Facility, we had a plan already from the beginning that there should be a road map and a list of projects that could qualify for the facility. Those are huge tables with calculations and projects on the most important problems to be solved in Riga. In respect to the Riga Metropolis and its area - those are two main directions - cycling infrastructure and bicycle infrastructure connections that have been included in the Recovery and Resilience Facility departments, and the second one is mobility points. What I am concerned about in respect to the Recoveru and Resilience Facility is that the main goal on one section is to reduce CO2 emissions. In fact, all transport projects fall within this goal. I can prove that mobility points reduce CO2 emissions if we place 3,000 cars in them and put these people on railway. It is clear. But the question is how Europe will interpret it and how to define it before submitting the project. It is important how the Transport Ministry, the Environment Protection and Regional Development Ministry and the government tell this story to the European Commission. So that in the end it does not turn into Germans giving us money for Mercedes buses, and we transfer the money back to the Germans.

It is important for us to understand how the Recovery and Resilience Facility will meet our needs. We cannot yet speak about an agreement on the Recovery and Resilience Facility projects yet, but it is clear that we need bicycle infrastructure and mobility points.

Can you name any bicycle roads?

There is a whole map, a whole system of bicycle roads in development. For example, in the directions of Carnikava, Saulkrasti, Sunisi, Ulbroka, Kekava, etc. There is different progress in each of the directions. There are also internal Riga cycling paths. In order to complete all these projects of paths of several hundreds of kilometres, we would need EUR 341 million. It is clear that we will not get that money as this could be sum Riga could get for all its projects from the Recovery and Resilience Facility. However, we might be able to build the most important connections.

May the local government invest in territories belonging to Rigas Mezi, developing infrastructure for tourism, recreation, even though it is a territory of another municipality?

This situation is simpler because Rigas Mezi is a municipal capital company that has to manage properties of Riga. Investments in infrastructure should come from financing of the capital company, from its profits. As Rigas Mezi territories are located in certain municipalities, solutions can be found for cooperation. Thus, we would make this green circle more attractive and friendlier. It should be remembered that if in places where people walk, there are no trash bins, most often people will not put ice-cream wrap in their pockets but drop it somewhere in the forest. Not to speak about necessity of trails and other infrastructure that would make recreation more attractive and enjoyable.